The Bobath (NDT) concept in adult neurological rehabilitation: what is the state of the knowledge? A scoping review. Part II: intervention studies perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study's purpose was to describe the range of knowledge pertaining to the Bobath (NDT) concept in adult neurological rehabilitation, synthesizes the findings, identify knowledge gaps and develop empirically based recommendations for future research. METHODS: A scoping review of research and non-research articles published from 2007 to 2012. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on a systematic procedure. Inclusion criteria for studies were electronically accessible English language literature with Bobath and/or Neurodevelopmental Therapy as the subject heading in the title/keyword/abstract/intervention comparison with respect to adult neurological conditions. Data were abstracted and summarized with respect to study design, theoretical framework, clinical application including population representation, study fidelity, intervention comparison, duration of care, measurement and findings. RESULTS: Of the 33 publications identified 17 were intervention studies (11 RCT's/1 prospective parallel group design/5 N-of-1). One other paper was a systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention studies, primarily RCT designs, have serious methodological concerns particularly related to study/treatment fidelity and measurement resulting in no clear clinical direction. Aspects such as theoretical framework, therapist skill, quality of movement measurement and individualized interventions require careful consideration in the design of Bobath studies. Implications for Rehabilitation Future intervention studies should be based on the current Bobath theoretical framework and key aspects of clinical practice. Study and treatment fidelity issues need to be carefully considered when interpreting the results of existing RCT's evaluating the Bobath concept. N-of-1 randomized, observational, factorial and mixed method study designs should be considered as alternative study options.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".